OK, I've been considering doing this for a while now, but decided enough was enough. I had considered watching them all, and then posting all the reviews together, but that wouldn't garner much debate. So, instead I'll post the reviews as I watch the films, in chronological order.

I've watched, and reviewed, Blade Runner and Kingdom of Heaven recently, so while I'll watch them again, I'll post the reviews that I posted previously on the mini-reviews thread, amended slightly to fit in with the format I'm using here.

It'll take me a few months, as I'll be watching other films too, but I thought it would be interesting to have reviews all in one place. So, here's the complete list (which, I'm proud to admit, I did from memory, including the years....):

I’m not the biggest fan of period dramas, but as with Westerns, there are always exceptions to the rule. My problem is that, on the surface, not a lot happens in period dramas – lots of sitting around, talking about marriage or lack thereof, and so on. I enjoyed Sense & Sensibility, but I like to think that’s down to my love for Ang Lee as a filmmaker and loving everything he’s ever done. The Duellists is a period drama, and indeed not a huge amount happens. What, crudely, marks the difference is that instead of a lot of talking about nothing, there is a lot of duelling about nothing.

The simplicity of the story lays over the complex motivations that drive the story. Where lesser men may have given up and admitted defeat, it is the very honour of these men that drive them to continually duel whenever they meet. The vast majority of the story is taken up with the setup to and fallout from the various duels, and of course the duels themselves. Nevertheless, the duels never seem dull or repetitive as they are fought in various locations, with different emotions injecting the scenes. There is never a sense that in any of the duels either of the duellists are holding anything back, or doing anything other than best their opponent by killing them. Scott, in this his debut film, shoots (I believe, operating the camera himself a lot of the time) with what would become his trademark beauty and splendour, investing the fights with a grace and elegance, that is punctured by raw violence that never seems gratuitous. There is the impression of historical accuracy but, as is typical of Scott, never seeks to overpower the story itself, but simply provides a basis on which to build a more believable and fully-immersive world. The scene in Northern Russia is particularly notable as it is the one moment where our two protagonists almost work together. However, this fraudulent image is exposed upon one saying to the other as they depart, ‘pistols next time’.

Keitel, unusually playing a period role, tones down his New York accent, although Carradine seems to stand out with a lone American accent. That being said, both work wonderfully in the roles, and suspension of disbelief is easy for that reason. The Duellists is one of those films that is too often forgotten, and not widely seen. It is one of Scott’s underrated gems – the more so for being his debut.

Summary The two leads are fine in their respective roles as the titular fighters, and the supporting case are able. While the film is still to an extent ‘rough around the edges’, it being Scott’s debut, there is still a great deal of that Ridley magic on show, and you can see where his style is going to go. Moreover, the raw feel heightens the impact of the duels themselves, and makes it far more believable than many glossy period dramas. Based on a Joseph Conrad story, The Duel, the film takes a simple concept and works with it brilliantly. The music punctuates the fighting, and stirs up that turn of the century feel of militaristic excellence and honour. As a period drama, the film is excellent, as a debut, the film is sublime.

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

Bristol Bad Film Club A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

Is that because you particularly like, or (as is often the case) dislike it?

Oh, come on!

Well, I quite like it...! Certainly not near his best, but it has atmosphere in spades. Anyway, more when I get to it...

Dave, it's definitely worthy checking out. There have been some great debut films, but this is great. Plus, it has Nana from The Royle Family in it...! (So my wife informed me: I've never watched The Royle Family...It's only a small role anyway.)

ElephantBoy, I can't make out whether you're saying you agree with your sentiment, or whether it's sarcasm - it's hard to get across through the written word. Either way, I can appreciate Austen's work and it's historical significance; I just don't particularly care for it, personally.

I'm at the cinema tonight, but I might get a refresher watch of Alien tomorrow night. A nice late-night viewing should get the right atmosphere... Plus, weirdly, it's been 20 years since I first watched it. (Yes, I was 7. Or 8. I think 7, tho.)

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

Bristol Bad Film Club A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

As movie debuts go, this is one of the better ones - from Hovis commercials to this, a nice character driven piece with a nicely done ending.

On the subject of all things Ridley (my fave director ever I have to say), there is one thing that has been niggling me, perhaps something for you to look into when you get to it Homer? I have heard talk of a Director's Cut of Legend - and an original 150-minute cut making the rounds, but have not heard anything for any releases (when Fox finally released it on dvd over here it was one of those piss poor features-lite crap transfer that had the original European cut).

But what really drives me nuts (and has done since I first saw some set photos like 15 years ago in some book on movie make up) is this image of Robert Picardo (yes, the Doc in Star Trek: Voyager) who is in the film as the green swamp goblin thing, but also played another character who was dressed in the same make up / costume as Tim Curry's Darkness, but dark green instead of red. Aparrently in the American cut (or maybe that original 150min cut) he played a significant role, but I don't know any more than that. Can anyone shed any light on this?

As movie debuts go, this is one of the better ones - from Hovis commercials to this, a nice character driven piece with a nicely done ending.

On the subject of all things Ridley (my fave director ever I have to say), there is one thing that has been niggling me, perhaps something for you to look into when you get to it Homer? I have heard talk of a Director's Cut of Legend - and an original 150-minute cut making the rounds, but have not heard anything for any releases (when Fox finally released it on dvd over here it was one of those piss poor features-lite crap transfer that had the original European cut).

But what really drives me nuts (and has done since I first saw some set photos like 15 years ago in some book on movie make up) is this image of Robert Picardo (yes, the Doc in Star Trek: Voyager) who is in the film as the green swamp goblin thing, but also played another character who was dressed in the same make up / costume as Tim Curry's Darkness, but dark green instead of red. Aparrently in the American cut (or maybe that original 150min cut) he played a significant role, but I don't know any more than that. Can anyone shed any light on this?

[Edit: spelling, d'oh!]

I have the R1 Ultimate Edition of Legend. On it, there is the US Theatrical Cut, which is 90mins, and the Director's Cut, which is 116mins. (Or 1hr54, which is where the 150 number may have come from.) The theatrical cut is with the Tangerine Dream score, and the director's cut with the Jerry Goldsmith score. Imdb does mention a 150min cut, but I think that's one for the cutting room floor, as only the 116min director's cut seems to be otherwise available.

Robert Picardo played Meg Mucklebones As you mention, but isn't credited as anything else.

Point of Interest: As is significant with an above average number of Ridley Scott's films, where more than one version of the film exists, I'll be watching and reviewing Scott's preferred version. Which means the DCs of Alien, Legend, Kingdom of Heaven; the original cut of Gladiator and American Gangster (the other versions are just 'extended', Scott was happy with the original cut... for once); and the Final Cut of Blade Runner.

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

Bristol Bad Film Club A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

As movie debuts go, this is one of the better ones - from Hovis commercials to this, a nice character driven piece with a nicely done ending.

On the subject of all things Ridley (my fave director ever I have to say), there is one thing that has been niggling me, perhaps something for you to look into when you get to it Homer? I have heard talk of a Director's Cut of Legend - and an original 150-minute cut making the rounds, but have not heard anything for any releases (when Fox finally released it on dvd over here it was one of those piss poor features-lite crap transfer that had the original European cut).

But what really drives me nuts (and has done since I first saw some set photos like 15 years ago in some book on movie make up) is this image of Robert Picardo (yes, the Doc in Star Trek: Voyager) who is in the film as the green swamp goblin thing, but also played another character who was dressed in the same make up / costume as Tim Curry's Darkness, but dark green instead of red. Aparrently in the American cut (or maybe that original 150min cut) he played a significant role, but I don't know any more than that. Can anyone shed any light on this?

[Edit: spelling, d'oh!]

I have the R1 Ultimate Edition of Legend. On it, there is the US Theatrical Cut, which is 90mins, and the Director's Cut, which is 116mins. (Or 1hr54, which is where the 150 number may have come from.) The theatrical cut is with the Tangerine Dream score, and the director's cut with the Jerry Goldsmith score. Imdb does mention a 150min cut, but I think that's one for the cutting room floor, as only the 116min director's cut seems to be otherwise available.

Robert Picardo played Meg Mucklebones As you mention, but isn't credited as anything else.

Point of Interest: As is significant with an above average number of Ridley Scott's films, where more than one version of the film exists, I'll be watching and reviewing Scott's preferred version. Which means the DCs of Alien, Legend, Kingdom of Heaven; the original cut of Gladiator and American Gangster (the other versions are just 'extended', Scott was happy with the original cut... for once); and the Final Cut of Blade Runner.

I always thought the theatrical cut of Alien was Scott's preffered cut, the Director's Cut was just done for marketing reasons or something.

With regards to Legend I think there was a 150 min workprint version of Legend but most of the footage has been lost and it's never been officially released. I wish they'd release the Ultimate Edition DVD on R2!

I always thought the theatrical cut of Alien was Scott's preffered cut, the Director's Cut was just done for marketing reasons or something.

My mistake. I've just checked on the bastion of reliable source information (!) that is Wikipedia, and it confirms this. It's the inconsistent use of the word 'Director's Cut', which I think on the Quadrilogy is now 'Special Edition'. This being the case, I'll watch the original theatrical cut of Alien.

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

Bristol Bad Film Club A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

(Contains spoilers - now available in invisiotext, marked with ---> <---!)

Back in 1988/1989, at the tender age of 7 or 8 (I forget which now) my parents went out for the evening, leaving my with my eldest brother, ten years my senior. (This fact makes me think I was 8.) He had recently purchased a film on VHS, and he said I could watch it if I promised not to tell mum and dad. That film, as you may well have guessed, was Alien. I was understandably frightened, but not soul-destroying so. I was, fortunately, able to separate fact from fiction, and be frightened in the 'right way', as opposed to scarred for life.

Nineteen years later, and Alien remains one of my all time favourite films. It also introduced me to the subject of this thread, one of my favourite directors. Almost every aspect of this film reeks of perfection. From those stark and yet entrancing opening titles, to Jerry Goldsmith's brilliant score, to the set and prop design, to the simple yet oh-so-effective story, to the note-perfect acting, and finally to the iconic, yet-to-be-equalled alien design of H.R.Giger's. Here is a film that creates an entire world – that at which Scott reigns supreme amongst his peers – and spawned a legacy of admittedly diminishing returns. Nevertheless, taken on its own merits, one cannot dispute the raw power that Alien exudes from every frame.

At its core, Alien is little more than a slasher. --->One by one, the seven crew members – Kane, Brett, Dallas, Ash, Parker, Lambert, and Ripley – are picked off one by one, until only Ripley remains. (OK, Ash is 'killed' by Parker, but the alien does the rest.) <--- However, over this simplistic framework, Scott weaves a believable future, a workable crew relationship, and a world so complete, suspension of disbelief is barely necessary. In the opening scenes, after the titles, and after the shot of the ship that beats Star Wars at its own game just two years after A New Hope was released, the computer flickers to life as Mother begins to wake the crew. The only movement is a perpetual motion drinking bird toy, and a flutter of paper in a non-specific breeze. Yet Scott manages to convey a sense of communication by flicking between the screen, and the reflection of the screen on the emergency helmet. There is an eerie sense of artificial communication, in which humans have no part. ---> Indeed, it is an odd prolepsis of Ash and Mother's communication, as they are both artificially intelligent.<---

The crew speak and act as a crew would – their talk is of mundane matters such as bonus payments, idle banter and chit chat. There are clearly closer friendships and divides drawn early on. Parker clearly dislikes Ripley, for instance. Nevertheless, faced with a greater danger, these divides are cast down in a bid to work together. By simply drawing these allegiances and distances, we get a better sense of the unity against the alien in the latter scenes.

Perhaps the most purely visual film (Blade Runner has a great deal more story to it) Alien owes most of this to Giger. The gunner, the interior of the alien ship, and of course the alien itself are of such an intricate design, they are all totally believable. The organic nature of the ship extends the complex life cycle of the alien itself into an almost symbolically symbiotic-like relationship – a symbol of the actuality of the relationship between the face-hugger and the host body. It creates a fully-realised alien existence, and the entire visual feast goes towards maintaining believability within an unbelievable environment. The solidity with which we can view these events aids our emotional investment of the film, and thus increases our reaction to the brutal horror of the alien on those occasions where we snatch a glimpse of it. This is Scott's other significant decision. Where, say Jaws four years previously showed little of the shark for aesthetic reasons, Scott's (while being partly for that reason also) reason was to ratchet up the tension. By not seeing the alien fully, we fill in what we don't see with our worst nightmares, and as such, we create a monster more horrific than can be conceived on screen.Summary The acting is note perfect. From ---> Holm's android Ash, to <---Weaver's increasingly desparate Ripley, through Kotto and Stanton's repartee as co-workers Parker and Brett, and good friends, there is barely a foot put wrong. Goldsmith's score serves both as emotional underline, and shock-inducing dischords, last heard in films such as Planet of the Apes. Scott's visual finesse, seen raw yet with such promise in The Duellists here is almost at its peak. An astonishingly beautiful film, its savage beauty sums up the alien itself. This is one of the finest science-fiction films ever made, and certainly the greatest horror.

< Message edited by homersimpson_esq -- 29/1/2008 7:16:42 PM >

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

Bristol Bad Film Club A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

Couldn't have put it better myself. It is Ridley's best film and one of the greatest films ever made in my eyes. Just one thing you forgot the subplot about the females bodys reaction to giving Birth thats in there too Awesome Reveiw keep it up

Really ace work here, Homer, but since enough has been written about Blade Runner (my all-time fave), can we skip it and get to Legend? Much-maligned, but I reckon it's the cat's PJ's. I, too, prefer the R1 Director's cut. The U.S. cut with the Tangerine dream score is crap, relatively speaking. Come on, man! Help a brother out!

See, the problem I have with Alien is that it doesn't know how to end. The first three-quarters aren't too bad and then it sort of fizzles out. There's no real tension or excitement in the finale because there doesn't seem to be a direct battle between Ripley and the alien, so it falls short of being a masterpiece in that respect, for me anyway.

_____________________________

"I've been too honest with myself, I should have lied like everybody else"

No, see, the tension is high because of the ship about to self-destruct. She starts it going, then makes her way to the shuttle. She meets the alien on the way who is blocking her path, so deciding she doesn't have enough time runs back to try and stop it. She fails, and is left with only five minutes to escape. That journey from the self-destruct panels to the shuttle is incredibly tense. In Alien Ripley hasn't yet become the cynical, embittered gun-toting gal that she becomes, through necessity, in Aliens. She's as scared as any normal person would be, and it shows. To have her escape from the ship, only to find the alien curled up on the shuttle must have been devastating, and - despite the show of the world's skimpiest knickers - an even tenser scene follows as she dons her suit and straps herself down. I love it. It ends with tension and sudden release, rather than the obvious 'get away from her, you bitch' finale of Aliens. I thoroughly enjoy Aliens, don't get me wrong, but they are vitally different films, and to end with a face-off as you suggest would have dispelled the atmosphere created in the preceding hour and a half totally. Don't forget that it's a mining ship - they have no weapons. If Ripley were to have squared off against the alien, she would have lost pathetically. Only with the cargo bay contraption thingy in Aliens is she even close to a near-match.

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

Bristol Bad Film Club A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

For a long time Blade Runner has been sitting majestically on top of my ‘favourite films ever’ list, with no signs of ever moving down the list, despite watching some sublime films over the last six months. I’m not sure what childhood aspects came together, but science-fiction has always been my favourite genre, be it films or books. The imaginative scope is exceptional, which along with visions (utopian and dystopian) of the future melded with commentary on our own present-day world makes it a genre that is unavoidably perfect for me. Blade Runner is the summation of these aspects that come together to form a film that, to quote our transatlantic cousins, ‘covers all bases’.

This is a review of the film so I’ll avoid the temptation to talk of the trouble production history and concentrate on the Final Cut print that I recently watched. With this in mind, this films looks and feels like it was made last week, with the exception of nitpicky comments about the companies now bust advertised within the film (Atari, et al). And even that can be argued as adding to the grungy history-future with which we are presented. The vast minute detail already present in the film is rendered with eye-popping clarity here. So clear is the image it was at times like watching a new film.

To the film itself, for those uninitiated: The events of the film concern Rick Deckard, a retired cop who specialises in ‘retiring’ replicants – artificially intelligent objects who resemble humans in every way. He is called back out of retirement after a number of the newest model of replicants escape and land on Earth. That, as far as the events themselves, is pretty much it. Deckard follows clue after clue in true film noir fashion which lead him, inevitably, to a final, apocalyptic showdown. Of course, there is much more to it, and it is the nuances, subtexts and themes that set Blade Runner apart from others of its ilk. This is truly why the film takes place at the top of my list. I love films. So long as a film is doing what it sets out to do, then I can enjoy it. It’s why I include the last category of ‘Success of Intent’, because I can enjoy films that just aim to thrill as well as those that aim to thrill and make you think. Just because the first doesn’t, doesn’t mean that you can’t enjoy it for what it is. I’ve talked about this before, so won’t go into great detail here. I mention it because, for me, Blade Runner is a film that can be seen as both art and entertainment. It’s a great film if you want a good solid adventure. And it’s a great film if you want something to chew over with your mates afterwards. Finally, it’s a great film to enjoy visually and aurally again and again, as both music and cinematography is dense with detail.

Vangelis’ score is another fine layer to that grungy look of the film that places the dystopian vision somewhere both recognisable and foreign. The music places it separate from other, more traditionally scored science-fiction films of the 80s, and prevents it from ageing. I suspect that even in 2019 it’ll look authentic, even if 2019 looks nothing like the 2019 in Blade Runner.

Even with all the many essays and commentaries that have been made on the various themes and issues within Blade Runner, it is this which makes it so enduring: it is an infinitely enjoyable film. For all the discussions it engenders, it remains a great story. Without that, it is irrevocably reduced. With it, it reigns supreme.

Summary

Harrison Ford is nicely subdued from his contemporaneous Indiana Solo roles, and perfect for this part. Rutger Hauer is the tagline’s ‘more human than human’ and imbues his Roy Batty with a depth that is (intentionally) never reached by Deckard. Sean Young’s Rachel is quite innocent, but with a layer of melancholy that I hadn’t fully appreciated until I saw the Final Cut. The rest of the cast, including a young Daryl Hannah perform their roles with skill. I couldn’t fault the way this film looked before. The music, as mentioned, is faultless. A finely streamlined adaptation of the novel, which having read, I have gained a greater appreciation of the film. Which is not to naysay the book, but rather the animalistic aspects of the book make parts of the film clearer still. It is exactly (now at least!) what Ridley Scott intended, and is the zenith of his career, and of science-fiction films in general.

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

Bristol Bad Film Club A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

No, see, the tension is high because of the ship about to self-destruct. She starts it going, then makes her way to the shuttle. She meets the alien on the way who is blocking her path, so deciding she doesn't have enough time runs back to try and stop it. She fails, and is left with only five minutes to escape. That journey from the self-destruct panels to the shuttle is incredibly tense. In Alien Ripley hasn't yet become the cynical, embittered gun-toting gal that she becomes, through necessity, in Aliens. She's as scared as any normal person would be, and it shows. To have her escape from the ship, only to find the alien curled up on the shuttle must have been devastating, and - despite the show of the world's skimpiest knickers - an even tenser scene follows as she dons her suit and straps herself down. I love it. It ends with tension and sudden release, rather than the obvious 'get away from her, you bitch' finale of Aliens. I thoroughly enjoy Aliens, don't get me wrong, but they are vitally different films, and to end with a face-off as you suggest would have dispelled the atmosphere created in the preceding hour and a half totally. Don't forget that it's a mining ship - they have no weapons. If Ripley were to have squared off against the alien, she would have lost pathetically. Only with the cargo bay contraption thingy in Aliens is she even close to a near-match.

It's also worthy of note that by not having the alien discovered until she is almost naked (the oridingal script had her completely naked for this) reduces the heroine to her most vulnerable she could ever be. Easily Ridley Scott at his best and greatest, and one of the best sci-fi and horror films ever.

Blade Runner is a close second for Scott's cv, multi layered to the extent that one could write hundreds of paragraphs about it without repeating itself - well done for a good wite up there! Although for defunct companies, Pan-Am is what most people complain about, Atari is still up and running (though is obviously only a games publisher these days).

I think this could rightly claim be THE most imitated film of all time - hell it's even been admitted that some films actually aim for 'that Blade Runner-esque look' like it is a genre unto itself, as opposed toa 'sci-fi noir' look.